Journalists are still wondering what happened

The post election dissection is a study in how a fishbowl of left-leaning journalists totally missed what was important to most of Australia. Maybe the ABC or Fairfax might want to employ a conservative?

Journalists talked, and nobody cared

The journalists said the Coalition would win. They analyzed their movements seat-by-marginal-seat, mapping the flights, wallowed in hours of same-sex marriage debate, asked what happened to climate change, and debated whether the big-spending deficits had killed off Labor’s chances. Every nuance of the soapie called Turnbull-v-Abbott was discussed — did Turnbull snub him by listing former PM’s and not Abbott? Did Abbott grin, or grimace? Navel gazers opined that the Brexit shock would push even more people to the conservative side, it will be “a defining moment of the campaign” they said — as if UK trade agreements with Germany would a/ disappear, or b/ rank in the top sixty things Australia voters cared about. And Leigh Sales asked every candidate whether each leader would still be their leader next week. As if any politician would ever reply “no” the week before an election.

“Leading commentators on Sky News predicted between 80 to 85 seats for the Coalition, with Peter van Onselen saying he would quit in the event of a hung parliament.

Many of us even convinced ourselves that the low-energy, small-target campaign was a clever way of “boring” voters into backing the Coalition. [It certainly was boring says Jo]

People are asking if journalists are unskeptical or even gullible? (Wait til they find out about the groupthink on climate change).

“You got the impression they were confident and confident for a reason,” former Media Watch host Jonathan Holmes says of the coverage. ”There was very little scepticism of what was behind that”.

But if the media were wrong they were hardly alone. Two days before election day the bookmakers – often hailed as more accurate than pollsters – had Labor at $8 and the Coalition narrowing to a near guarantee of $1.08.

People placing those bets might have been watching the news, no?

Many political insiders, too, were surprised by the scale of the swing.

So, as Insiders host Barrie Cassidy asked, were journalists shown to be “gullible”? Or were they being lied to?

“Journalists,” Simons concludes, ”were too quick to become part of Malcolm’s fan club.”

When the Defcons (defiant conservatives) went hunting for alternatives, they voted for small parties and if they preferenced Liberals at all, it went second or third last on the slip, making counting a nightmare, slow, and here we nearly a whole week later.

Pollsters didn’t ask the right questions. They were glued to the old “two party preferred” system, and didn’t ask if there was “no party preferred”, or better, if voters were so fed up with the majors they were ready to risk electoral hare-kari.

All they had to do was read the internet.

An aquarium full of journalists analyzed the fish-food

Predictably political junkie-jounalists find the lefty Malcolm Turnbull appealing. (Everyone they knew liked him more than Abbott.) If even the hated Tony could win 90 seats, surely Turnbull could win 80. Now they are saying they “underestimated Bill Shorten” which still misses the point. Shorten would have been wiped out by any half decent Liberal leader. But he was so truly awful that he couldn’t beat a lacklustre waffler who firebombed his own supporters.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait...

Rating: 9.4/10 (109 votes cast)

Politically-tragic soft left journalists completely missed the Defcon vote, 9.4 out of 10 based on 109 ratings

The bookmakers were thrown big money for a one sided outcome to try and steer the voting public to what the special interests wanted…
Failed again to change the public from being disillusioned with their politicians and the coarse they are putting society in.

If they had the normal election at the end of the year then the government may have done better with the help of Fairfax, Guardian, ABC and SBS predicting 2017 would be the hottest year in the history of he world.

A double D in the middle of a Southern Hemisphere winter only gave the Denialati more opportunity to clarify the situation.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to chat with some green leftoids and mentioned that Hanson is correct on climate change. Derision was heaped upon me, then I told them global cooling has begun.

Derision was heaped upon me, then I told them global cooling has begun.

Yep.. Fingers in ears going lalalalalaaaa.. is what the leftards do while ignoring the satellite data that shows there’s been no warming for 20 years. Their only cunning plan was to change the data so it matches their hysterics. I’d expect jail time for those crooks, but doubt they’ll receive any, such as the Clinton debacle in the US.

I think they can not change the rules too much because some of the voting procedure is part of the constitution. I think the preferential system was put in at federation. I think a referendum question allowed a change in the senate to have a partly proportional system following the Hare-Clark voting system in Tasmania. That change allowed minor parties if they could get enough votes to have an elected representative. Prior to the change senate voting was for individuals who represented the state but not necessarily along party lines. The above the line was an act of parliament to simplify the the proportional party voting for those not voting for individuals. The most recent act of Parliament was to change the above the line to give more control of voting back to individuals and remove deals between parties for preference flow. The system is far better than that in New Zealand where some members are directly elected and the rest are chosen by parties.

You are right Stefan there have not been referenda concerning voting changes but some refenda eg 1967 re aborigines did affect voting.
A summary of the history is as follows
1902 optional first past the post for both houses
1911 compulsory enrollment for voting but still optional voting
1918 optional preferential voting for both houses
1924 compulsory voting for both houses
1940 a type of proportional representation for the senate
2016 limited optional preferential-proportional but compulsory voting for the senate

I wouldn’t want to change preferential voting. First past the post locks in two major parties and punishes the minor ones. Without preferential voting we could get a result like the UK, where UKIP got 12% of the vote and only one seat.

Ukip came second in 118 of the 650 parliamentary seats. A map of Britain illustrating second-place voting patterns reveals purple splashed across middle England, suggesting that if the current system were replaced with the alternative vote (AV), where voters rank the candidates in order of preference, Ukip would fare considerably better.

Similarly, Farage’s party would become a genuine parliamentary force under a proportionally representative system. Under proportional representation, Britain’s political landscape shifts radically: Ukip suddenly has 82 seats and the Greens 24. Conversely, the cohort of SNP MPs shrinks to 31, while the Tories lose 90 seats, with the likely result being that Britain would have been faced with another coalition instead of a Conservative majority.

First past the post voting can lead to bizarre results such with someone getting elected on 35% of the vote even though other candidates of the opposite political persuasion muster 65% between them.
Our preferential system is by no means perfect, but it’s much better than first past the post.

PS. I’m sick of complaints that it’s taking too long to count the votes and announce a result; a national election is not a footy match. (Although you could argue it resembles both a boxing match and a beauty contest

It is done in Switzerland both for elections and referenda ( recently there were 5 referenda questions 3 not successful and two successful -result available for total vote and state votes as in Australia the next day)

Not only bizarre but skewed by pressure groups (eg union thugs). Ad*l*he Hit*er was elected with around 30% of optional first-past-the-post votes. Optional first past the post is the worst possible system followed by optional proportional voting. Compulsory preferential voting has to be close to the best yet devised. Maybe to make the system better voting should be restricted to over 21years old as in the first decades of federation. Also, no criminal in jail or having served more than one year in jail at any time should be allowed to vote.

Optional proportional voting works very well, if you are just voting for your preferred local MP, or local Council, which is generally what a lot of elections are about.

Making voting compulsory, just means that people will turn up, because they are forced to, but then invalidate their ballot paper as a protest. Unless, of course, you have a “none of the above” opt-out, which sort of negates the “compulsory” bit.

Most compulsion comes later in the day, down at the pub, when the results are in. Any moaning about the result, is met with, “Did you vote?” Well, if you didn’t, shut up!

I met a German WWII sub sailor, and being a 1960′s SS sailor we talked about our depth charge experiences and etc. I asked him why Hitler was elected and he stated that the 2 major parties were the NAZI’s and the Communists. Most of the German people disliked the communists.

Have you seen the polls in moderate, liberal Holland lately, Jo? Remember that despicable, horrible man who was not to be allowed to enter Australia, or at least be refused speaking venues, a few years back? He leads the country’s biggest party based on opinion polls for the last couple years:

The traditional main parties (which I can remember from my formative years living in Holland … don’t ask, several decades ago) of the VVD (centre-right, at least by Dutch standards), PvdA (Dutch Labor party) and CDA (Christian Dems) and now half or less of the 35-40% support enjoyed by the Freedom Party led by the aforementioned man – Geert Wilders.

Ducth government is always a coalition arrangement, given the proportional voting system, so I imagine Geert will join with VVD, or possibly CDA, to gain majority in the next election. No doubt the current government will hang on as long as possible to stave off their demise (at the latest the next Dutch election is early 2017).

The Dutch are a very tolerant people, but even they have their limits. The EU open borders policy coupled with the massive influx of refugees is scaring the bejebus of the Dutch. Part of the reason why my (Dutch) Mum is happy to stay in Andorra, thanks.

First past the post works adequately if the electorate holds its elected representative to personal account. It fails when the ‘parties’ take over the platform and a choice develops between an individual and a region, and a party and the country. Give me first past the post any day for true democracy in action. Don’t buy into the delusion that a.the World is a small place and b. your country trumps your region.

South Africa has a proportional voting system, where you vote for PARTIES, not individuals (even in local elections). The end result is that you get a bunch who are responsive ONLY to Head Office, and to hell with the actual voters. Personally, I’m jealous of your system in Aus.

This is a really interesting and important thought. Back when Ross Perot ran, he got 18% of the vote and zero per cent of the electoral votes. Our media maintain a 10% of polling threshold to even let the minority candidates into the debates. Dissident voices are kept from both the public, and from the legislature. Before the internet one could go for long periods without even knowing there was more than one point of view. A way to get even a single seat, with the ability to command a small amount of attention, is a very constructive part of a democratic republic. We always need to make sure the one who is willing to point out that the emperor has no clothes is not reduced to being a dismissable megaphone carrier on a streetcorner.

Yes, the preferential system is necessary – for reasons the might need to be explained. I have even seen it used for choosing the name of a band and a venue for a Christmas party. But in those instances, the lower votes – entered with some disdain – didn’t count as highly as the favourite votes. In our voting system, they do. I think that is what is wrong.

You are spot on in your assessments Jo. But it wasn’t just the soft left journalists who got it wrong but also the betting markets who listened to them. Poll after poll had the result too close to call and yet betting markets had Bill Shorten at 6:1 against becoming PM.

The problem is many journalists live in a self created fishbowl. That is part of the reason the world has politicians like Donald Trump in the USA, Boris Johnson of the UK and Pauline Hanson of Australia. Too many journalists have stopped listening and observing people outside the fishbowl. Some are lazy and just rehash what gets posted elsewhere such as Reuters or AAP. Investigative journalism is a dying art. Instead too many journalists default into preaching – telling people what they think and deriding those who disagree. These journalists have become activists, just like the government funded scientists and their lapdogs in the western media on CAGW. And it will get worse because that is what our universities are creating.

For the record I was a “Defcon” on Saturday. On my lower house ticket Turnbull’s local blow in candidate was only preferenced ahead of Labor and the Greens. In the upper house I numbered 4 conservative alternatives ahead of Liberal, Labor and the Greens. I personally know people who have been voting for over 50 years who didn’t vote Liberal for the first time in their lives on Saturday.

The ‘good story’ appears for the most part unbridled propaganda doesn’t it? The MSM seem quite used to ‘getting it wrong’, though one questions whether yesterday’s news propaganda and today’s fish ‘n chips in the context of a sound bite trained attention span matters? Apparently, the MSM doesn’t appear to think it does. They make their ‘mistakes’ and move along to repeat them, which very much suggests they’re not ‘mistakes’ per se. There are few indeed that are quite that stupid. No, they are spin meisters and propaganda savants. It’s their new, post-modern self-appointed, bought and paid for role. So they make the inevitable professional habit of ‘mistakes’, knowing most of the sheeple will have forgotten by the following day. And that’s exactly where their arrogance is defeating them. The issues get ever bigger, while they remain the low wattage propagandists they are: Trump, Brexit, the substantial unpredicted Conservative swing in the UK at the last General Election, the current Australian election results, the unpredicted and incovenient 19 year absence of ‘global warming’… and on it goes.

A fifth column is any group of people (ie. MSM) who undermine a larger group—such as a nation or a besieged city—from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation (UN). The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack. This term is also extended to organized actions by military personnel. Clandestine fifth column activities can involve acts of sabotage, disinformation, or espionage executed within defense lines by secret sympathizers with an external force.

True enough.
Also, I think traditional print media are having quite some trouble transitioning to on-line as well.
They’re having problems gaining a revenue stream and the subscription model doesn’t seem to be broadly accepted.
It’s a vicious circle providing few opportunities for employing quality journalists. It’s just too easy for the masthead to republish someone else’s tosh to fill the screen.
Media positions we used to consider should be occupied by journalists have been relegated to merely commentators where ‘trending’ is king.
The other problem the MSM face is that they don’t even control the news stream any more. “News” is often broken on the likes of Twitter and suddenly we realise everyone with a smartphone is both a journalist and a publisher.
Except Julian Assange or Edward Snowdon of course . . they’re criminals apparently.
So, considered in that light, the MSM is just another consumer like the rest of us.

Until the 90′s sitting down reading the local paper was a nightly pleasure. I stopped after our local paper was purchased by a national company because the front page then started to be populated with stories from the national news companies. There were few if any local stories.

The problem is journalist have a boss and are under the thumb, usually enforced financially. The employer is under the thumb (financially) 99% of the time also. Nearly all work for the same stuff printed out of thin air as everyone else.

It is not possible to understand journalism or even politics which is also subject to ‘under the thumb’ without some awareness of finance.

Many cultures understand that the “village” or community raises the child.

In my own situation I feel extraordinarily blessed as I think of the wonderful childhood I experienced with my family, neighbours, schools, church and other organizations ALL running on a shoestring budget.

The modern method is to have expert guidance but this doesn’t work when the so called experts are disconnected from the reality of the world.

Poor and arrogant leadership of Western countries in recent decades has led to dire consequences where media trendiness is the guiding light which all must follow.

Just five minutes on a trendy radio station or their ABC social program can illustrate the point that I make.

Reality is absent. Not only this but the politics of envy runs full blast creating a mindset full of anger and bitterness that someone had plundered the nations wealth in earlier times and thus leaving them with just a few crumbs and a big mess to clean up.

Little wonder that Australia has one of the highest youth suicide rates in the world.

Reality Reigns.

Trouble is that people have been duped for so long by a political handout system that they can no longer see the reality of the world for themselves.

Just five minutes on a trendy radio station or their ABC social program

Cripes KK. Such recommendations should be accompanied by a health warning or at least a script for one or more of the following: B-blockers, muscle relaxants, a sedative-hypnotic and an SSRI.
Oh wait, a substantial portion of the population already take one or more of those.

Keith, I think to be blunt science has tried to be bigger than it is but has convinced people they are way smarter than they are ( which is called arrogance and foolishness ) …. this has been the nub of our society issues.

People are quick to poo poo religion, however sciecne cant tell us definatively what happens when we die ( Christians believe in an afterlife of course ).

I think when govts try and legislate morality, its a slippery slope to bad things – when society has lost its original cohesion, especially through leftist corrosiveness / seagull behaviour, behaviour is legislated and standards watered down to lowest common denominators, then its a small step to barabarism.

Ergo, removing God from society and replacing it with a pagan eco religion with everything being “relative” is the epitome of prive before a fall behaviour….

Rerelease, I think it is completely possible to be as you say but also able to function within a faith. With Christianity there is a heavy emphasis on testing everything and not accepting stuff on face value only. As such if being self contained is ones normal state, the Christian finds no issue with this as they accept God is in control of everything and accept they aren’t perfect at all…….

I guess it’s a long winded way of saying an educated life and Christianity are not exclusive of each other.

(“Mapping the Gaps Between Expert and Public Understandings of Effective Parenting in Australia”. Really, take a look.)

‘Tis truly amazing drivel from self appointed “experts” that likely have no experience in parenting, even from there own parents. Perhaps the authors were merely craped on a stump, and left in the sun to hatch.

Yep. Never have I spent even a quarter as much time researching & writing my own “How to Vote” card.

As someone else said, it must have been murder to count. A mate who worked in a pooling station said they only counted/sorted to the first preference. The re-elected sitting LCP member, [one of the good ones], got only a little over half what he did last election.

He felt sorry for party scrutineers, who had a much harder time sorting out preference counts.

I had my HTV printed out with a large-font heading “how to punish Malcolm Turnbull and his fellow traitors”. I proudly showed it to the Liberal HTV’er. He took it with good grace, like it was nothing he hadn’t already seen many times that morning.

The results so far seem to indicate the election of the least worst candidate for PM in the house of representatives with many of his supporters deservedly losing their seats such as Mr. Hendy. The whole basis of the coup was that PM Abbott was down in the polls and would not have won an election which is partially true due to a relentless campaign against him by the press, but Mr. Turnbull had also been plotting against him from day one and had not offered him any loyalty. However, Mr. Turnbull did not use his popularity with the press to do anything significant and dithered when he became PM.

In the Senate many availed themselves of a far simpler voting system whereby one didn’t have to vote above the line following party preferences to achieve a valid vote. Previously it was a daunting task to vote below with sixty or
so candidates which put most off. So the result is more democratic and the people have elected a lot of minor parties, sufficient hopefully to keep the government in check.
One also hopes that those elected will take a more national view of things and not block things such as budget repair just for the sake of wielding their power as previously.

Whether there will be another election soon is anyone’s guess, but if PM Turnbull doesn’t show some prime ministerial skill and put the country first, rather than his personal agenda, it seems likely. I think Barnaby’s answer to the question about the who is best PM, one word yes, is illuminating.

O/T but I just looked at the wind turbine performance, a miserable 200 odd MW from 3669 MW capacity or 5%; as low as I have ever seen it.

As the sun isn’t up yet, how can any politician honestly justify renewable energy as a viable alternative to thermal or nuclear generation of electricity for Australia? And yet all parties, bar Pauline, want it without any impartial investigation. Are they sane?

that’s surprising to know that Xenophon is anti wind turbines. The Parliament had a Select Committee Inquiry into wind two years back. I made a Submission, and directly informed the six Senators on the Committee, and he was one of them. My Submission (read it if you want at this link, just click on my name) was the 2nd of 491 submissions, and was largely ignored.

At the polling place a friend worked at, in an area of mostly acreage homes, [whatever that may imply] they had 2600 votes, with about 9% from other electorates.

Of these only 160 odd of us voted below the line. I was quite surprised until I thought about it. Then I realised it took me some hours to research my senate vote, something it appears not many are willing to do.

My wife and I were disenfranchised. Despite advising the AEC over two months ago where we would be (in Europe) on 2 July, they failed to get our voting papers to us, at all! We could have voted for the ALA candidate in the Reps (Louise Marcus bit the dust anyway, I wrote to her and said “told you so”) and the two ALA candidates in the Senate – but we was robbed! Wouldn’t have made any difference, I suppose, but I wonder how many others were in the same boat?

Strangely someone we know has a postal vote and the deadline it has to be received by is July 15th. Does that mean you could still vote? Maybe not, as they are supposed to be cast by 6pm on July 2nd (presumably they need that mail time-stamp?) Who is checking those postal stamps, anyone?

Last day for receipt of Declaration votes

All declaration votes must be received (either through the declaration vote exchange or postal votes being returned) in the relevant division no later than 13 days after election day.

Postal votes are included in the count if they were cast before 6pm on election day and are received within 13 days after the close of the poll.

(These aquaintances who have their postal votes appear to have been tricked by the July 15th deadline into thinking they didn’t have to post on July 2nd. I wonder if their vote will count, and how many people got caught? )

I got my postal vote in Paris on the Thursday before the election, and an email from the AEC a week or more before that, saying that it had been dispatched. from… somewhere.

As my meticulously completed postal vote from 2013 never reached its destination (and I got a letter asking me to confirm that I really did vote), this time I took no chances, and voted at the Aussie embassy. There were a surprising number of people there, given it was mid morning on a weekday, but thankfully no how-to-vote people anywhere to be seen, though there were a few small piles of cards hidden away in an unobtrusive corner on the opposite side of the room from the ballot boxes.

Afterwards, I realised (i.e., I actually read the pamphlet with my postal vote) I could have just dropped off my completed postal vote at the embassy, saving…well, hardly any time at all, really. No doubt I have contributed slightly to the national debt by getting a postal vote and not using it, so, well, sorry about that.

The verification part of the postal vote needs a witness signature, but doesn’t have a date field anywhere, so I doubt there is any definitive way to establish when the ballot papers were completed, as long as they arrive at an AEC location before the 13 day limit is up.

Yep. The doctors’ wives finally had a candidate to celebrate (between sets of tennis) and knew just where to put that tick. Abbott was snips-’n-snails-’n-puppy-dog-tails. Malcolm was a cool pinot gris. The base had to cop him, they had nowhere else to go. The New Class would be drawn toward him like they’re drawn to a cramped little espresso bar that’s just been given a gong in the Sydney Morning Herald. The silly average punter would just follow, no?

What they didn’t realise is that the silly average punter likes a candidate who can start a sentence on Tuesday and get it done by the weekend. Sunday at the latest.

I see many parallels to the political wrangling ahead of the upcoming American election. The far right rejects Trump because he’s not conservative enough, as the left fears him because they think he’s too Libertarian, which to me seems like the closest analogy to Australian Liberals. Our media here is also mostly dominated by the left who skew coverage to make it seem like Hillary has the upper hand and pollsters always tune their questions to get the answers they want.

Trump is neither fits the Democrat mould, nor the Republican. He is just Trump. Due to the fact that he already has lots of money, a lot of ‘establishment’ do not like the fact that he cannot be bought in the way the most politicians have been. A lot of people like this, although they will admit that Trump is not perfect.

The major broadcast news bulletins have been steadily loosing views and influence over the years. Most people do not buy a newspaper anymore. Conservative news website are doing very well.

Polling is difficult in the United States due to voluntary voting. How do you anticipate who will actually bother to turn up to vote. It is further complicated due to the fact that people are dropping the land lines, and just using a cellphone. Most people I know do not answer calls from numbers that they do not know. So how do you accurately poll these days. On Staten Island, after a hurricane a few years ago, the phone company did not bother repairing the phone lines, as so few customers use them, and businesses just use internet phones.

It is also easy to get the result you want in an opinion poll. If you want a democrat winning number, then oversample democrats, and vice versa.

I agree on your critique of polling. It is now really uselessly misleading; I had always thought it was.

During this last Aus campaign, I had quite a number of those robocalls, including one made by Waffle himself. Hanging up immediately may seem satisfying, but no real person on the other end actually gets to know you did. And these calls are always timed to interrupt one’s tea – not a way to harvest votes, one might think.

To me the biggest reason the Libs campaign failed was that they tried to make it about Turnbull with early marketing making you think that the Libs had changed the name of the party to the Turnbull party. His pathetic performance which swung between insipid and cowardly meant that conservative commentators such as Andrew Bolt and yourself actually were the most accurate forecasters of what was likely to occur. In fact Andrew probably had some influence in what occurred. The media assumed that the reason Malcolm polled badly was cause he wasn’t true to himself but shackled by the conservatives in his party. No, he failed because he took the party too far to the left and liberal voters realised that given a clear majority it was only a matter of time before the real Malcolm came out.
The fact that MSM failed to predict that reflects the very insular landscape within which they reside.

Actually there were 9 thing which turned off conservatives and political centre working people
1/ presidential type Turnbull party advertising and mail out flyer at the beginning of the campaign
2/ the superfund taxing and back-dating
3/ the submarine announcement for billions of waste money going to France for technology that is already out of date to save a few union controlled jobs and Payne’s seat
4/ Not welcoming the return of the Vietnam service dead
5/ The Turnbull’s dinner with the Moslem’s featuring that racist and hater preacher mufti and that apologist Waleed Ali
6/ the lack of highlighting of the border security and the attitude of the left labor and greens
7/ news of the passing of regulations by Hunt and Turnbull to allow an ETS when it was known that the electorate had rejected a “carbon tax”
8/ Not killing off the medicare issue by highlighting inefficiency, bureaucracy and waste. Also not highlighting the record of improvements by federal and state liberal government in contrast to the waste, waiting times etc by labor governments
9/ Not attacking union control, and highlight TURC especial the comments on Shorten being and unreliable witness.

There is an “famous” tweet that gets repeated on blogs in NZ ; tweeted by a far left, young female journalist which says something like:

” No matter what we do or say we can’t shift the polls”

Tweeted during our last election campaign. A classic case of living in a fishbowl and believing their own propaganda.

The irony of this issue is that we now have access to far more information, from a much wider range of sources and opinions but the political class seems more insulated than ever. For Textor to say the disaffected Liberal voters did not matter is a very real illustration of this.

Ross, were they referring to the polls (politician) or polls (opinion survey)?
If it’s a lefty victim twattle, it may refer to the “centre-right” eco-globalist government in NZ. If it refers to the opinion surveys, it’s probably good news that their usual leftist diatribe fails to gain traction?

It was referring to the political polls for the NZ election. That is, they couldn’t do anything to shift the polls in favour of the Labour/Green block away from National. ( It was Katie Bradford who sent the tweet).

‘Her economic policies reek of ratbaggery, so let us hope she doesn’t use her Senate clout to revive protectionism and tariffs. On multiculturalism and de-funding Big Climate’s fools and charlatans, however, she is with the angels. No wonder the ABC is already spitting insults.’

No.
The first nail in your coffin was the bizarre “CO2 POLICY” that Turnbull played.
Did even one member say something like

“Ya know this idiotic C02 meme, which our (most) voters do not support, will drive our own supporters away.”

It also appeared the liberal policy “experts” had no connection to “the google” either.
We could see what was going to happen.
Yet they missed it.
I will never vote for the liberals whilst they have any form of C02 tax/trading “virtue signalling” policies designed only for dim witted, car driving, fossil fuel using (oh the irony) keyboard Klimate kooks.

Some good points in your links.
If Malcolm Turnbull had any brains he’d give Tony Abbott a ministry.
Why not install a ‘good cop-bad cop’ partnership that would keep the Abbott supporters more on side and provide a grand opportunity (not to mention a hilarious spectacle) to mess with the heads of the Leftists.

It doesn’t matter really but I was thinking something innocuous . . Defence was suggested and he’d do fine there.
Hunt could be ‘taken care of’ internally.
Strategically, they’d have the best of both worlds.
Malcolm is a sop but can charm the pants off Leigh Sales.
Tony is the best head kicker in the business and would make mince meat out of Electricity Bill Shorten.
The problem would be getting Malcolm to see the advantage.
The ego is strong in this one.

8 Jul: UK Daily Mail: AP: Costa Rica nominates Christiana Figueres for next UN chief
Christiana Figueres is the 12th contender in the race to succeed Ban Ki-moon after his second five-year term as U.N. chief ends on Dec. 31.
Costa Rica’s President Luis Guillermo Solis said the U.N. and the world need Figueres because she is a proven “bridge builder” who can listen, consult, help resolve disputes, build agreements and anticipate problems…
The 11 other candidates — six men and five women — have already made their case to be the next secretary-general to the 193-member General Assembly. Figueres will have her two-hour question-and-answer session on July 14, assembly spokesman Daniel Thomas said Thursday…
The Security Council is expected to hold its first “straw poll” on July 21 where the 15 members will cast ballots saying “encourage,” “discourage” or “no opinion” for each candidate.
There is no deadline for candidates to apply and additional contenders could enter the race at any time before a final vote. No date has been set, but it’s likely to take place in September or October…
European nations, including Russia, argue that they have never had a secretary-general and it is their turn. There has also never been a woman secretary-general and six of the 12 candidates are women…http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3679280/Costa-Rica-nominates-Christiana-Figueres-UN-chief.html

All around the world, there’s a feeling amongst the political pundits that electorates have gone mad. What’s happening in Oz is in no way unique. The supposed experts have totally lost touch with voters.

One wonders whether they’re seriously contemplating the post-modern final solution? I mean, why not dispense with elections in favour of government by the Ministry of We Know Best (UN), advised by the experts that know best (civil society), with the reliable backdrop of on-message MSM propaganda? It’s so much cleaner and simpler without all that inconvenient, expensive box ticking stuff. /sarc

Dear Pointman, while the above statement would seem to be abundantly true, it is also a vast understatement, the fact is that in the minds of legions of people uncompromised by intellectual pretentiousness, the expert classes have descended to the status laughing stock.

8 Jul: UK Daily Mail: It’s May vs Leadsom! Britain to get its second female PM after Tory MPs knock out Gove in the battle for No 10 and send women through to deciding ballot of Conservative grassroots members
Home Secretary won 199 votes, energy minister Andrea Leadsom received 84 and Michael Gove got just 46…
By James Tapsfield, Political Editor, For Mailonline and Matt Dathan, Political Correspondent For Mailonline and Tim Sculthorpe, Mailonline Deputy Political Editor
After tonight’s ballot, the final two candidates will go forward to the party membership, with the winner being announced on September 9.
Yesterday, former Conservative chairman Grant Shapps called for the process to be accelerated, saying it should be finished by the end of July…
Some 60 per cent of Tory councillors back Mrs May, excluding those who were undecided or refused to give an answer, a Survation poll for BBC2′s Daily Politics found.
This is compared to just 28 per cent who are supporting her closest rival, Mrs Leadsom…http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3678493/Dirty-tricks-student-union-politics-Tory-grandees-slam-Michael-Gove-s-cynical-attempts-borrow-votes-Theresa-former-leader-Lord-Howard-backs-Andrea-Leadsom.html

5 Jul: BBC: Matt McGrath: Warming unlikely to limit chances of UK soggy summers
Scientists say that greenhouse gases will cause a general rise in summer temperatures, over the course of this century.
But they argue, it is random shifts in Atlantic storm tracks that determine whether our summers are hot and sunny or cool and wet.
The study has been published (LINK) in the journal Nature Geoscience…

The authors argue that while global warming will continue and is linked to emissions of greenhouse gases, the effect of variable factors like the storm track can act for or against this underlying rise.
“We may have rising temperatures in a predictable way, but every now and again the climate systems in this part of the world can roll the sixes on a dice, of very cold wet summers or very warm dry summers,” said Dr Gagen.
“There is no predictable element to that at all.”…

The researchers say that these factors are important because they can influence the general public’s perceptions of global warming.
Newspaper reports on climate change in the UK have often painted a positive picture, suggesting that farming will benefit and vineyards will commonplace. However this study suggests that the long, hot summers of a warmer future are unlikely…
Much of the data for this study was produced by the Millennium Paleoclimate project, involving almost 40 institutions across the European Union…http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36704400

I am sick of these do gooder politicians. Now they have taken greyhound racing away from the average punter. Used to enjoy going to the “dogs” with my mates when a youth growing up in Sydney. While the toffs keep their fox hunting and horse racing, they shut down an industry spanning 500 years. Did you know King Henry VIII had a racing greyhound on his coat of arms. That’s how far back it goes.

posted by DM 11 hours ago, yet no other English-language MSM – exept in Israel – has carried this AP story as yet, even tho they all subscribe to AP!

7 Jul: UK Daily Mail: AP: Tycoon jailed for multimillion-euro scam of French state
A French court convicted and jailed a tycoon Thursday over a 283 million-euro ($314 million) carbon tax fraud, dubbed “the scam of the century” by French media.
Arnaud Mimran was sentenced to eight years and a 1 million-euro fine for the 2008-2009 fraud, which resulted in a major tax shortfall for French authorities…
Mimran was taken away by the police inside the courtroom to be brought directly to prison, as ordered by the judge. Ten other defendants received sentences of between one and eight years from the Paris court, and six were also fined 1 million euros. All were convicted of aggravated fraud and money-laundering. One person was acquitted.
A dozen lawyers attended the verdict hearing. They left the courtroom looking somber and unusually refusing to comment on the verdict to reporters…

To fight global warming, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol created a tool, the “carbon market.” In Europe, companies receive CO2 emission quotas every year, tantamount to a “right to pollute” to a certain limit. If they pollute less, they can sell the allowances they have left to other, more polluting companies.
But this market soon attracted organized crime…
In the civil part of the ruling, those convicted were jointly sentenced to pay 283 million euros in damages to the state which was a plaintiff in the case. The sum is equivalent to the amount of the losses for the French tax authorities.
Half of the 12 defendants were tried in absentia and are believed to be in Israel…http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3678565/Netanyahu-donor-convicted-France-vast-tax-scam.html

much, much more detail on the carbon fraud trial of the century the MSM refuses to cover:

7 Jul: Haaretz, Israel: Dov Alfon: French Tycoon Linked to Netanyahu Sentenced to 8 Years in Prison
Arnaud Mimran was convicted of fraud charges in what has been dubbed the ‘fraud of the century.’…http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.729465

7 Jul: BusinessStandardIndia: IANS: Post Javadekar’s pro-industry stand, new Environment Minister will have to begin from scratch
Prakash Javadekar in the two years as Environment Minister was in the limelight for his pro-industry policies and climate diplomacy, but he also faced flak from environmentalists who dubbed dilution of green norms as “an obsession for short term economic growth”.
Javadekar, who now heads HRD, the only Minister of State who got promoted to cabinet rank in Tuesday’s reshuffle, credits himself for granting environment clearance to over 2,000 held-up projects, paving the way for investment worth Rs 10 lakh crore.
However, the figures don’t project a very upbeat image of the ministry in the past two years…

His first announcement, after taking office in May 2104, was to make industrial clearances ‘on-line’ and since then about 349 clearances in the mining sector and 264 clearances for non-coal mining sector had been granted.
His ministry claims that project clearance time has been brought down to 192 days from 600 days and will be dropped to 100 days in the coming months…

6 Jul: Firstpost: PTI: Prakash Javadekar has done a great job and most of his projects will continue: Dave
Development and environment go together and are “not against” each other, newly appointed Environment Minister Anil Madhav Dave said on Wednesday as he took over from Prakash Javadekar during whose tenure activists had raised apprehensions about dilution of green norms.
Speaking in the presence of Javadekar, who now has the Human Resource Development portfolio, Dave said all projects undertaken by his predecessor will continue although he would take a week’s time to understand the functioning of the department…http://www.firstpost.com/politics/prakash-javadekar-has-done-a-great-job-and-most-of-his-projects-will-continue-dave-2877340.html

Earlier in the week Miranda “Mother of DelCons” Devine made some posts where she, through tight pressed and reluctant lips, suggested that Abbott may have been a better leader and that the DelCons had been slightly successful.

For this some of the other more ‘right’ political commentators have been suggesting that all has been forgiven and that Miranda should now be welcomed back as ‘One Of Us’.

Or… Not.

Miranda in one of her columns had this to say about the DelCon movement;

They stamped their little feet and had a ten-month tantrum

Or, to word it another way, they acted like children and refused to do what the much wiser adults told them to.

This is the problem. While Miranda confesses the DelCons DID actually play a significant role, she still refuses to admit they had a right to do so. Her belief still seems to be that once you pick a party, you do what the party tells you do to, because they are adults and you are not.

Sorry, Miranda, but you pick a party to match into your principles, not the other way around. Until you understand that basic fact then you are still going to be wondering while your opinion columns constantly need later correction.

In the past journalists came from a system of apprenticeship in which they received a healthy dose of skepticism and exposure to a diversity of perspectives. Today they overwhelmingly come from the academic degree mills where they receive a heavy dose of political correctness and a thorough indoctrination in the ideology of the academic left. That they are out of touch with the productive sector of society is increasingly apparent. The ongoing decline in readers and viewers of the mainstream news media is not solely due to the Internet.

As an unrepentant Defcon I couldn’t be happier with the result – a situation in which Turnbull will have not only a hostile Senate and opposition, he will also have a hostile back bench who have made it clear that he will not be permitted to ignore them on any policy decisions or negotiations with the cross benches to form government. The big bonus is that Bill-the-Dill will be in virtually the same situation, win, lose or draw.
Both leaders will be walking a knife-edge of insecurity in their positions and constantly wondering when the first knife will slide into their kidney.
Couldn’t happen to two nicer blokes! BTW… keep an eye on Andrew Hastie.

As an aside – the minor parties have hurt both labor and liberal – (especially liberal) in the hip pocket.

Morning all

It seems that the electoral commission coughs up about $2 per primary vote to any given candidate or their party. Even if the given party eventually wins the seat on preferences, the minors get $2 for each primary they get. So it would seem that if 1 million people voted away from the libs, that’s a whole lot of fundraising the libs have to do to make it up.

And the minors like ALA and Family First have a nice little nest egg to use for their next campaign.

So if Cory Bernardi is right and 1.7 million voters voted for right wing minor parties that is around $5 which didn’t go to the Liberals? As I read the AEC figures for this time and last time there seems to be just under a million voters who moved from voting Liberals to elsewhere – $2.5 million + is still a huge amount of money for the Turncoat and his supporters to lose. Time for a re-evaluation of principles.

7 Jul: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: UK climate adviser warns of ‘far right’ attacks after Brexit
Sinister right wing forces are set on crushing UK environmental laws, the country’s top climate change advisor told a meeting of business leaders in London on Wednesday.
Lord Deben said the Brexit vote on 23 June had empowered what he termed an “unpleasant group of politicians” who saw it as a “first step” to cutting green regulations.
“We will be faced by a concerted very well-funded series of attempts to reduce protection of environment and workers’ rights and we are going to have to have to fight it1,” he said an event hosted by the Aldersgate Group.
UK secretary of state for the environment from 1993 to 1997, Deben compared some of those advocating for a split with Europe to supporters of fascism in the 1930s.
“I would remind everyone that fascism through the wars was called National Socialism,” he said.
“Both those words can be applied to quite a lot of the political discussions we have had… but ***we are too polite to say it.”…

Also speaking at the event, Foreign Office climate envoy Sir David King said he agreed with Deben’s sentiments, but stressed the current government was “totally committed” to limiting greenhouse gas emissions…
Earlier this week, former chancellor Lord Lawson told a meeting of climate sceptics in Parliament he was confident a new British government would review its carbon cutting policies.
The 2008 Climate Change Act was a “huge, massive, self-inflicted wound,” he said at an event hosted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/07/06/uk-climate-adviser-warns-of-far-right-attacks-after-brexit/

7 Jul: EnergyLiveNews: Jacqueline Echevarria: Thumbs up for Northumberland opencast coal mine
Northumberland County Council has approved proposals for a surface coal mine at Highthorn.
Banks Mining plans to extract coal, sandstone and fireclay from a site near the village of Widdrington. The process is estimated to last more than five years with total operations lasting seven years.
The company said the site will be restored once work is completed. It claims the project will create at least 100 full time jobs…
Council Leader Grant Davey said: “I fully accept this has been a long and difficult process, with strong feelings on both sides but I do believe this decision is in the best interests of Northumberland and its residents.
“It is interesting to note a number of the objections have come from as far afield as Madagascar and Bangladesh, while more than 1,000 local people indicated they wished to support the application.”
The application has now been sent to the Secretary of State for consideration.http://www.energylivenews.com/2016/07/07/thumbs-up-for-northumberland-opencast-coal-mine/

Lingua franca of eco-lefties – demonisation. The ‘sinister right‘ that Deben The Notorious refers to lives in his eco-fevered imagination. Far more fearsome, it is the reasoned Brexit democrats who find their voice … and their knuckle dusters. There is after all a kollectiv of eco-Remainer knuckle heads to clean-up.

It begins with reason and democracy, as it always should, so one hopes that Deben and King are likely to number in the first cleansing of a new British PM, possibly Andrea Leadsom who claims to be channeling Margaret T.

This is the man who never believed in the precautionary principle, or waiting until any scientific body has established its best understanding on a subject. This is the man who, by all the evidence, will seek personal profit first no matter who it hurts.
Now he gets big money from the scam of windfarms, and bleats untruths and fantasies on the BBC radio…http://www.climate-resistance.org/2015/11/freedom-to-invent-information.html

BBC finds canteen worker in the Bundestag to make yet another call for a second referendum:

8 Jul: BBC: Brexit: The view from the Reichstag
The tourists, delighted, peer into the heart of the German Bundestag (parliament) and gaze up at the great sunlit glass dome above it, famously designed by Norman Foster.
What their smartphone photos don’t capture, of course, is the political mood in the Bundestag. As MPs hold their final meetings before the summer recess, the shock and sadness at the Brexit vote has shifted – to frustration and anger.
Addressing reporters this week, the parliamentary leader of the Social Democrats (SPD), Thomas Oppermann, could barely contain his fury.
“David Cameron turned an internal conflict in his party into a conflict of society. In the end, he turned a divided party into a divided county. Demagogues like Johnson and Farage, in total irresponsibility, created chaos, lied to people, made promises they couldn’t keep and now ran away into the undergrowth…

And in one of the Bundestag’s many canteens, MPs gather to gossip…
“I think it’s the beginning of the end,” says Jacqueline as she wipes the counter top and rearranges hotplates of schnitzel and vegetables. She was here, pouring coffees for shell-shocked MPs after the referendum result came in.
“People were really upset. And what does it mean? Imagine the British have a financial crisis – would we help them? I think they should rerun the referendum.”
And – while few politicians here would echo her last point – there are many who hope that, as they leave for their summer vacations, they might come back to a different political atmosphere in the autumn. That, perhaps, Britain, with some breathing space, might yet change its mind.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36719060

I’m going to make three points here. all of which go directly to the theme of this Thread.

I share emails with three friends in the U.S. on a daily basis, and have been doing that for 11 and 8 years. At every election here, I have to explain the system here in Oz, and they still cannot understand why we do it the way we do it, like compulsory voting and preferential voting, especially the latter, preferential voting.

The first point is about preferential voting.

Here in Oz, we are perhaps one of a single figure number of Countries which do have preferential voting.

In 1919, with first past the post (FPP) voting from Federation, a by-election was held in Swan, WA, and the Labor man was elected with only 34% of the vote, so more than two out of every three voters did not want the Labor guy. The other two were Liberal and Country Party. (now The Nationals)

It was changed to preferential voting and the next election (2 Months later in Corangamite Victoria) saw Labor lead, only to be dumped after distribution of preferences.

Since then, preferential voting has been perceived to favour the Coalition Parties.

So let’s look at this latest election, so close, and will deliver a Majority Government to the Coalition.

Get this!

If the system was still FPP, here’s the Tally

Labor – 54
Greens – 2
Independents – 3
Liberal – 80
Nationals – 11

So, The Coalition 91 to Labor 54. Looks pretty much like a landslide to me, and before any of you think that I need to get a life, the exercise only took me 35 minutes, and is based around what is effectively 85% of the vote so pretty close really to a complete end result.

So, it seems that the extra people running tend to actually favour Labor, especially the Greens vote.

The second point is also about about Preferential Voting and this gives us the opportunity to park our vote away from the Liberals, to punish them, as we have discussed here often, and what this Thread is actually about. It punishes them by (a) sending a message, and (b) cancelling out the funding they get for first preference votes, mentioned above in another comment. Then as that candidate we voted for is eliminated, our preferences drift back to the Coalition. They got the message, they lost the funding, and they still have the chance of being elected, all going well.

The third point is about Compulsory voting, and here, take into account also what happened with Brexit.

Younger voters are more complacent thinking that, well, the left will win, and I’ve got better things to do than vote, and anyway, they’re going to win. Older people have more realisation that it really is important. Introduce non compulsory voting and the young, traditional Labor voters just won’t vote, while older people will appreciate intensively the privilege of voting and will make the utmost effort to still go out and vote.

So, whenever you hear calls for non compulsory voting and going back to FPP, be assured that it will most probably never get u, no matter who proposes it.

It seems that here in Australia, the real winner in this election is the process. It works, and this proves it works.

Also, in those close seats, what you see at all those polls is a pre-programmed computer projection based on last elections. This one was different because of all those of us mentioned in this Thread parked our votes elsewhere, and they’ll come back to the Coalition. (in the main) In all those close seats, they cannot even begin to distribute preferences until all the Primaries are counted. So some of those seats where (computer projected) preference distribution have already been factored in, there is the chance they will come back to the Coalition.

I’m in the electorate of Capricornia, and the projection was that it would go the way of Labor, and is still in doubt. Polling Day saw only 75% of voters turn out, as the other 25 had pre-polled, long the advantage of the Coalition.

When I voted, I took my own Senate sheet in with me, and because Michelle Landry sits with The nationals, she got my first vote in the House. I saw the how to vote cards from the others and The Greens were the only ones preferencing Labor. (Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk) The Greens ran second last with Katter and Family First out polling The Greens, and both preferenced Landry. I think she’ll get back in, and that will be a significant win for the Blue side.

The same happened in the next electorate to ours, Flynn, which was given away to Labor early on but has also come right back, and I think he’ll hold on, He also sits with The Nationals in Canberra.

I think some of those seats pencilled in for Labor and are close might even come back the other way as well, same reason.

Joanne mentioned in her text that we knew what was happening, and that’s how it seems it really has happened.

Like your USA friends I scratch my head over a few issues with your system. The one that I really find hard to grasp is how these “how to vote cards” are handed out. If people have to be told how to vote then either the system is too complex or they shouldn’t be voting in the first place –to my way of thinking it distorts the process ( unless I have totally misunderstood what the cards have on them).

I guess most people are watching the ABC site for results, and as good as Antony Green’s results are, his computer program is only as good as the last election, and this one has more variables.

I mentioned my own seat Capricornia, and Flynn. In both seats The Greens ran either last or next to last. The other conservative leaning candidates were Katters Family First and PH One Nation. In both seats they all finished higher than The Greens, and their preferences will drift back to the Coalition, and both seats will be ‘blue’, now giving the Government 76 and a Majority, and others will also come back, as preferences cannot be distributed until all first votes are counted.

In Flynn, Hanson’s One nation ran third, and outpolled the Greens almost seven to one.

7 Jul: UK Express: Greg Heffer: Labour peer branded ‘patronising’ after claiming voters did not know what Brexit meant
Baroness Oona King, a former MP, pleaded with the Government in the House of Lords to consider holding a second EU referendum.
The former Channel 4 chief diversity officer told peers it is “only fair” another vote is held once EU exit talks are completed.
Baroness King, who previously worked in the European Parliament, said: “At this point in time it is the will of the British people to leave the EU and therefore negotiations on Brexit must take place…
But Tory peer and Leave campaigner Lord Andrew Robathan took issue with Baroness King’s suggestion voters were unaware of what Brexit meant.
He said: “”Does she not think it may be perceived that she is being somewhat patronising to suggest that people did not know what they were voting for when they voted in the referendum?
“It would be better for this unelected House to say ‘the people have spoken, whether we like it or not’.”…
Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Sharon Bowles said a rerun of the EU referendum was unlikely to be acceptable to voters “without clear evidence for it”.
Tory peer Lord Philip Norton said Baroness King’s call for a rerun of the Brexit vote was “an extremely dangerous path to pursue”.
He added: “It would convey the political class weren’t prepared to accept what the electors had decided and I think that would undermine trust in the political process at a time when that trust is already fragile.
“We cannot second guess the electors.”…http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/687370/Brexit-patronising-Labour-peer-Baroness-King-second-EU-referendum-voters-Brexit

writer Imran Khan is the chief executive of the British Science Association, a charity that aims to make science a fundamental part of British society and culture (Guardian):

7 Jul: Guardian: Imran Khan: Scientists fighting Brexit risk looking like an out of touch elite too
We have failed to engage enough with public and done little to address the under-representation of working class researchers
The Brexit vote should have led scientists to examine the disconnect between Britain’s ‘have’s and ‘have-not’s. Instead, we risk looking like shocked, money-grabbing elites.
This is unsurprising. When it comes to public policy, scientists often get their own way – or, at least, rarely lose out to populism…
We expected the referendum to go the same way, despite warnings that the public have “had enough” of experts. Over 93% of scientists felt leaving the EU would be bad for science, and virtually every leading figure – from Stephen Hawking to the science minister – backed the campaign to stay…
Given this near unanimity, and the fact that 79% of the public trust scientists to tell the truth (only 21% trust politicians), the outcome has shaken Britain’s scientific establishment. The result has been described by Sir Paul Nurse as the “biggest threat [to science] in living memory”.
To scientists, leaving the EU means losing funding, and free movement of researchers to and from the UK…READ ALLhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jul/07/brexit-is-also-a-vote-against-the-elitism-in-science

OUT OF TOUCH??? HERE’S SOME MORE:

more than 500 executives, entrepreneurs, campaigners and politicians gathered in central London to celebrate the green economy at the BusinessGreen Leaders Awards 2016 black-tie event.
Laurent Fabius was named Politician of the Year, & urged rapid ratification for Paris Agreement. doesn’t say who gave the anti-BREXIT keynote speech – maybe Murray:

PIC: 7 Jul: Business Green: James Murray: BusinessGreen Leaders Awards: It is the green economy that can turn crisis into opportunity
Last night we hosted the BusinessGreen Leaders Awards – here is the keynote speech in full:
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to sixth annual BusinessGreen Leaders Awards.
Without doubt the most prestigious, most progressive, and, judging by the temperature in this room, soon to be most perspiring green business awards on the planet.
More coveted than a credible plan for Brexit,
More sustainable than Al Gore’s solar panels
More desirable than Mark Ruffalo in an anti-fracking T-shirt…

To paraphrase John Oliver these past few weeks we’ve come to realise the UK is not just the country of Boris Johnson, it is very much the Boris Johnson of countries: completely contradictory, too clever by half, and yet strangely amused by the catastrophic mess we find ourselves in.
In short, there has never been a better time for a good party…

And, of course, thank you to our sponsors: DLL, Egyptian Steel, and our headline sponsor AECOM, who have helped make this celebration of the best of the green economy possible…

But a Leave campaign that drew heavily from the climate sceptic, post truth playbook at times only served to amplify the very worst of our politics and threaten the very best of our economy…

8 Jul: CNBC: Matt Clinch: Brexit set to bash Brits but not bolster Trump: CNBC survey
The U.K. economy will be negatively affected by the country’s vote to leave the EU, according to a new CNBC survey of chief financial officers (CFOs), with the results also suggesting the recent referendum will do little to boost the chances of Donald Trump becoming the next U.S. president.
Ninety-seven percent of global CFOs across a wide range of industries said that Brexit would have a “negative” or “very negative” impact on the U.K. economy over the next six months, with 81.8 percent stating the same for the economy of the European Union…
Political pundits and academics have tried to associate the Brexit vote with an anti-establishment movement and a protest against globalization, suggesting it could help a wave of nationalism to spread across the globe…
However, the results of the CNBC CFO Council survey suggest that the U.K. vote will have little effect on Trump’s chances, indicating that Hillary Clinton – the ***established politician – will easily win the race to the White House…
Eighty-nine percent expect Clinton to win the election in November and a higher percentage of U.S. respondents expect her to win, compared to a May survey by CNBC.

***There is one word of warning, however: 77 percent of CFOs in our May survey were expecting the U.K to vote to remain in the European Union.

(Note: 33 of the 105 current members of the CNBC Global CFO Council responded to this special survey on Brexit (21 U.S., 5 EMEA, and 7 APAC). Members represent a diverse mix of public and private companies from around the world, with more than $4 trillion in market capitalization.) The latest CNBC Global CFO Council survey, was conducted between June 30 and July 6.http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/

24 Jun: CNBC: The Brexit vote also helps Donald Trump

14 Jun: CNBC: How a Brexit vote could be vote for Trump
“It is not clear how U.S. voters will react (if at all) but we can envision a scenario where a ‘leave’ vote helps Donald Trump’s campaign,” states the KBW (Keefe, Bruyette & Woods) report.

Look this is really simple. The claim was that the “delcons” would rant and rave and say they would never vote Liberal, but in the end they had nowhere else to go and they would put their tail between their legs and vote Liberal.

Righto then. The blogs were just full of oaths never to vote lib. Rationally, even if all those thousands would actually vote lib in the election, they would NOT do so in any opinion poll, because the entire idea of making the threat is to make it credible. So the polls MUST have included the”delcons” voting anti-lib. Logically then, if in the real election they would crawl back and vote lib, the real vote would be higher than the polls. But the vote was exactly the same as the last poll. So the “delcons” really did do what they said they would.

If any single one of the ‘insiders’ had thought to step outside their own little insider paradigm – just once or twice and even just for a minute or two – they would have seen that the anger amongst classic conservatives against Turnbull and the wets in the Liberal Party was white hot, and these people ‘were not for turning’.

But instead, they sat around tables telecasting each of them agreeing with each other as to the latest thought bubble of the day, and as a result, every single one of them got it wrong.

Based on AEC Tally Room Returns Liberals Lost the following in AEC Funding under Turnbull and Mark Textor from losing the Conservative Voters who don’t count

From AEC

The amount of election funding payable is calculated by multiplying the number of formal first preference votes received by the rate of payment applicable at the time. This rate is indexed every six months in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index.

The election funding rate from 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016 is 262.784 cents per eligible vote. This is the election funding rate that will apply to the 2 July 2016 federal election.

Using that rate and the percentage swing suffered in each of the following seats

Turdbull and Mark Textor lost the Liberal Party the following Funds (no wonder they went with begging cap in hand to Jamie Packer)

North Sydney – Trent Zimmerman (another Turdbull Plant who lost 13.4% at By-Election) swing against of -9,13% = 7024 votes lost = $18,458 Funding lost to the Liberal Party

(the above figures calculated by taking current AEC Tally room 1st preference Votes – in the case of Trent Zimmerman 39,835 and diving by the percentage of votes – in this case 51.78% and multiplying the result by the swing, in this case 9.13& then by $2.62784

39835/51.78 = 769.3125×9.13=7034 votes lost x $2.62784= $18,458)

The 3 Liberal Electorates lost $59539 Funding from, according to Mark Textor “Conservatives who don’t count”

Taken at HOR at National Level – Liberals 5,193,865 Votes 50% swing -3.49% translates by the above calculations to a Liberal Funding Loss of $952,675.50 as at current counting

As a PS to Turdbull and Mark Textor from a “Conservative whose Vote does Not Count”

The above loss of Liberal Funding does not include the $100 I donated to Tony Abbott, and the $100 I donated to the LiberalParty prior to the last Tony Abbott Election, as well as the $100 I donated to Andrew Hastie for the Canning By-Election.

I am sure there a number of “Conservatives Who Don’t Count”, who will not donate extra to you again until Turdbull, Slimebag Morrison and Back Stabbing Julie Bishop are gone.

yes, in Senate Jim Molan Liberal 1 then ALA, Hanson, Conservative Parties, Nationals, then 3rd last Labor, 2nd Last Greens and Fully Last All the rest of the Liberals in reverse order

Numbered 151 spots – did pre-poll – laid it all out before going down to vote, but still stuffed up the Senate Vote and had to do a 2nd try which was correct

In HOR with Tony Abbott as my member, upset with him over 18 (c), doing nothing on the ABC and creating Apartheid with the Indigenous Referendum – the Saxons lost in 1066 to the Normans and the Normans did not give anything back

So 1 to Christian democrats but 2 to Tony Abbott, as I wanted him to get back in, but wanted to deny Liberals the AEC $2.62784 for primary vote

At the end of the “7:30″ program tonight, a couple of political journalists were interviewed about how the media failed to predict the election result. The one from Melbourne ABC Radio smugly stated that she had in fact stated that Labor could win but would probably fall just short and then went on to call the big losers as Wyatt Row and Peter Hendy. She couldn’t bring herself to join the dots, however, as she noted how they had supported Turnbull’s coup to shore up their votes yet weren’t returned and just brushed it off as one of those things.

Earlier on, Linda Burney seemed rather naive when presenting her hopes and aspirations for her time in parliament but was refreshingly astute to note that the low primary votes for both major parties showed that they needed to work harder to connect to the constituents.

In my book, connecting to the constituents would be to actually ask them what their opinions were and then take that to the party discussions rather than just preaching the party line which tends to act on a feedback loop via the MSM.

With enough members expressing the actual balance of opinion in their seats, there is no way that the Coalition or even Labor would have formed policies that pandered so much to the vocal left/green minority.

That Linda Burney made that statement in a national interview probably reflects her naivety in politics – a sitting member would almost certainly have been told not to say anything that implied the party had not listened to the constituents.

From the Bolt report tonight and from the AEC, Coalition 74 and Labor/Greens 71. So its a minority government after all? Hard to know with all the conflicting reports, but perfect. Now who’s deluded?

Even better, Turnbull who could not be bothered seriously campaigning and just waited for his destiny to be fulfilled from Abbott’s hard work now has a battle on his hands to do anything at all. And the Greens refused to play ball when their own side realised a deal was in the making. So it’s not just the conservatives who do not like Malcolm. He is not a Liberal, Labor would not accept him and now the Greens have told him to go jump. You can only hope he has a hissy fit and goes home. Another Gillard.

As for the smartest man in the room, if anyone had inherited $3M in cash thirty three years ago they could have done as well by buying 30 inner city terrace houses or 100 with leverage, renting them and just sitting on the properties doing nothing. He is no genius investor. As for the Ozemail deal, his bankers share of Sean Howard’s idea was $0.5M but that turned suddenly into $55million when US MCI came calling in the dot com boom. It was soon all worthless when Microsoft made Hotmail free, but he was paid out 110:1 which shows it pays to have a pile of cash in the first place.

No one likes someone who waits for someone else to do all the hard work, take all the risks and then steals the business. Prime Minister was Abbott’s job and he worked incredibly hard over a decade and was killed off by real conspiracy by people he trusted when he was most vulnerable and sent to his own back bench without so much as thank you. This is an extreme banker’s view of the right to own it all without the hard work or risk. No wonder no one loves Malcolm.

So go home Malcolm. No one likes you except your great friends at the ABC who undermined Abbott and they will not stay silent any longer when you cannot deliver their Green dreams either. You have disappointed everyone. Worse, the country is ungovernable which was a dream result for the people you betrayed, the conservative voters of Australia you said did not matter. Resign Malcolm. It’s not going to get any better when your ABC attack.

I think you might find your euphoria at Turnbull’s discomfiture may be a little premature. Here are some recent comments from the AEC

A spokesman for the AEC confirmed to news.com.au that counting would take place on Saturday: “The count will continue in a number of seats across all states and territories but particularly focusing on those close seats which are holding up the decision.”

These seats are expected to include Capricornia, Cowan, Forde, Herbert, Hindmarsh and Flynn which are all officially labelled as “in doubt”.
The AEC has yet to confirm whether counting will also take place on Sunday. A spokesman for the AEC said:

“It could go for some time,” the spokesman said. “ The overall picture of who forms Government really depends on small number of close seats and in a particularly close vote, postal votes received on July 15 could determine who wins the seat.

As Turnbull has also received pledges of support from three independents he is is in a position to claim government even if the vote is 74:71

Perhaps and it seems a big perhaps, the del cons can come to terms with their personal disappointments and concentrate on getting the LNP back in power not just in 2016 but 2019 also. You may be angry about Abbott’s removal but there will be a lot more voters a lot more angry if sulking Liberals hand the country over to the ALP. You seem to think that is what ought to happen but many disagree.

No, there is no way the Liberals should give up because of the damage Malcolm alone has done to the party, which he renamed ‘The Turnbull Coalition Team’ in honour of himself. Malcolm should just leave. He could end this now. Yes, I am angry at the removal. Many are still angry and proven right.

If it was not obviously a totally unjustified bit of treachery then, it is clear enough now. Given there was no reason to remove Abbott, Abbott should be offered his job back. Most Australians would see this as simply fair. He was doing a great job in difficult circumstances then. It was true of Gillard’s undermining of Rudd as immigration minister. So do we have to see this all play out and further damage our country or could Malcolm give everyone a break and go home before he is sent packing?

Of course Abbott may not accept this poisoned chalice, but someone has to dig us all out of this mess and who better? Who is the proven performer in adversity and who knows the job better? Abbott may fail, but my guess is that he would be far better than a shot in the dark with anyone else. The only problem is the immense damage done to his good name and reputation by the media monster which is Malcolm’s ABC. There is a reason media are not supposed to be this big under Australian law.

‘Before the poll, Griffith University political scientist Paul Williams told The Diplomat that the most likely outcome was a narrow Coalition victory or a hung parliament – a forecast that proved prescient, despite surveys showing the Coalition leading narrowly in the last week of the campaign.

‘For a prime minister who has declared there has never been a more exciting time to be Australian, the electorate has delivered a political thriller. Turnbull’s negotiation skills are about to be severely tested in the biggest game of thrones of his political career.’

Sorry if I’m repeating what someone else has said, but your views generally seem to be in parallel with our (GB) referendum / Brexit vote. The journos and pollsters now recognise the problem which is getting the voters to vote as they – the journos / pollsters – demand.

8 Jul: Mumbrella: Nic Christensen: The Age fires freelancer who faked viral ‘Melbourne man’ hipster profile
Fairfax newspaper The Age will no longer use the services of freelancer Tara Kenny after it was revealed she had faked two fashion vox pops for the paper’s Street Seen section with her friends…
Back in March, Fairfax cut more than 120 editorial staff saying it would rely more on freelancers for copy…https://mumbrella.com.au/age-fires-freelancer-fake-hipster-story-379518

“At a discussion with representatives of various media outlets, Putin urges journalists to report genuinely on the impending nuclear war.
Nobody has anything to gain from a nuclear stand-off against Russia. The power hungry decision-makers are few in number, but powerful enough to have subverted mainstream media to misrepresent Russia as the main threat to international security.”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09GBjzxYymQ

What is the most power thing in the world? .. In my opinion the greatest power is the power to print money. Imagine being able to do that in a game of Monopoly.

From: All And Everything.: Chapter 16. The Relative Understanding of Time, p. 131 1950 circa.
“”And meanwhile remember, that although the fundamental motives for the diminution of the duration of the existence of the three-brained beings of this planet were from causes not depending on them, yet nevertheless, subsequently, the main grounds for all the sad results were – and particularly now continue to be – the abnormal conditions of external ordinary being-existence established by them themselves.

Abbott won in a landslide…but the Turdfull only a minority or at best 1 or 2 seat small majority.

The coalition lost a chunk of its conservative base because of the Wizard of waffle, the back-stabber in chief, Mr Goldman and Sachs of illegitimate carbon credits, and yet there is Carbon Bill bragging because he come second to this big bank lefty Stiff.

So in the alp, they celebrate when they lose.

2 from 3 voted for someone else other than Carbon Bill the yeller of ‘Austraya’ from the back of a ute.

And yet there are the rest of the Alp morons proclaiming this Dud to stay at the helm for another 3 years in oppsition.

Carbon Bill… the measure of his success is to be a loser to a waffler and a mediscare liar to the public, and this is the best the ALP have got.

And the Mainstream Leftoid Presstitutes praising Carbon Bill for his magnificent loss!

Little wonder none of these imbeciles have got or can hold real jobs.

All eternally wards of the state that live off of real people’s earnings.

Then of course there is this medieval voting system that is the pinnacle of stupidity!

Everything is on line now,or haven’t these dummies noticed yet?

If banking can be made secure then why cant voting?

Any who advocate for our present system with 80,000 employeees thumbling around for 2 weeks for a lower house result and over one month for a senate result, should not be allowed to vote, much less run government.

We effectively have no government, and no direction as a nation for this duration that cannot be good for anybody as our nation heads towards a cliff of spiraling debt with no one
at the helm.

In private enterprise , everybody would be sacked for similar stupidities and stuff-ups!

But the best outcome from this election has been a week of Torture for Turnbull. How many would have been calling for his resignation if he’d scored a hung parliament last Sat night. Keep the delay.

…this medieval voting system… can be watched by two scrutineers at once. In electronic banking if money goes missing, people usually notice. Can electronic votes be recorded on paper so that a recount the old fashioned way is still possible?

Jo, an idea just popped into my head. I thought I’d run it by you. Suppose voting was done electronically and manually. What if voting was electronic, but before pressing the “official vote button,” the voter got a print out of his/her vote. The voter could then verify that his/her electronic vote was correct. Next the voter puts the printout in a ballet box. Two independent government agencies count the votes–one the electronic vote and one the manual vote. The results become certified only when the two counts are in agreement to within a small error.

I know this would be expensive and wouldn’t prevent collusion between the two “counting agencies;” but it would put the vote counters under added scrutiny.

9 Jul: Guardian: Nicola Slawson: Government dashes hopes of second EU referendum in e-petition response
Statement in response to petition signed by more than 4.1m people says referendum was ‘once in a generation’ vote
Parliament must consider all petitions that reach a threshold of 100,000 votes for a debate and, although the decision has yet to consider the motion for a debate, the Foreign Office responded to the signatories by email on Friday evening, pointing out that over 33 million have had their say.
Referring to the wording of the petition, which asks for a second vote to be held because the vote to leave did not surpass 60% of the vote and the turnout was less than 75%, the government response states that the European Union Referendum Act did not include rules about minimum turnout.
The statement said: “The act was scrutinised and debated in parliament during its passage and agreed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The act set out the terms under which the referendum would take place, including provisions for setting the date, franchise and the question that would appear on the ballot paper. The act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.

“The prime minister and government have been clear that this was a once in a generation vote and, as the prime minister has said, the decision must be respected. We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations.”
The petition, which was started by leave activist William Oliver Healey in May, when polls suggested remain would win, has been the subject of controversy after it was discovered that thousands of signatures were fake…

The petitions committee’s own statement underneath reads that the decision on the petition was to be postponed until 12 July. It read: “The committee has decided to defer its decision on this petition until the government digital service has done all it can to verify the signatures on the petition. We have already had to remove 77,000 fraudulent signatures.
“The committee wishes to make clear that, although it may choose to schedule a debate on this petition in due course, it only has the power to schedule debates in Westminster Hall – the second debating chamber of the House of Commons.
“Debates in Westminster Hall do not have the power to change the law, and could not trigger a second referendum.”http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/government-dashes-hopes-of-second-eu-referendum-in-e-petition-response

following is the full Soros address to European Parliament.

early on, Soros says it is not inconceivable that, by the time the British Parliament debates the ever-misrepresented Petition, that more people will have signed it than the 17+ million who voted for BREXIT!

Of course the chatterati are totally clueless about the silent majority. The chatterati exist in their own little bubble. The silent majority couldn’t be bothered speaking up, until it actually counts, that is.